JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC; Ms. A. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner Rafiqul Ali, who has filed W.P.(C) No.4234/2025, is aggrieved by the opinion dated 06.09.2024 passed in FT case No.113/2018 (P.E. No.143/2018), declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner who entered into India after 25.03.1971. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on receipt of notice entered appearance through his engaged counsel before the Foreigners Tribunal, Dibrugarh in connection with FT case No.113/2018 (P.E. No.143/2018) and filed written statement. Meanwhile, owing to the nationwide lockdown commencing from 24.03.2020, the learned engaged Counsel failed to take steps and vide an ex-parte order dated 30.04.2021, the petitioner was declared a foreigner. 4. The petitioner is at present lodged at the Matia transit camp at Goalpara. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is a genuine Indian citizen, but the engaged counsel of the petitioner had failed to take steps after lockdown which was imposed on 24.03.2020. 6. The petitioner belongs to the indigenous Assamese Muslim community. The petitioner has been picked up and forwarded to the detention center. The petitioner is son of Sabu Ali @ Chabu Ali. He belongs to indigenous Assamese Muslim Community and is a resident of Village –Bor Abhoipuria Tengakhat, PS-Tengakhat and district- Dibrugarh. The petitioner has earnestly prayed for an opportunity to contest the proceedings and place the documents required to prove his citizenship. The petitioner has submitted the following documents;- i) School certificate, ii) EPIC iii) Voters list of 1970, iii)Voters list of 2008, iv)Final NRC in his mother's name, v) Aadhaar card vi)Certificate issued by Gaon burah All the documents are annexed along with the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. Matters, Mr. G. Sarma, laid stressed in his argument that the school certificates cannot be considered to be link documents. The Gaonburah’s certificate in favour of petitioner’ mother Hafiza Begam does not establish any linkage. The voters list of 2008 and voters list of 1970 cannot be connected at all. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, F.T. Matters, Mr. G. Sarma, laid stressed in his argument that the school certificates cannot be considered to be link documents. The Gaonburah’s certificate in favour of petitioner’ mother Hafiza Begam does not establish any linkage. The voters list of 2008 and voters list of 1970 cannot be connected at all. The voters list of 2008 reflects the petitioner’ s parents names, whereas the voters list of 1970 remains vague as no linkage could be established. 8. It is further submitted that the lockdown was imposed way back in 2020 and was lifted after a year. The conduct of the petitioner reveal that, despite his knowledge about a case pending against him, he has neglected to contest the proceeding. The petitioner could not submit a single voters list linking him in any manner with his parents or grandparents. There is not a single linkage document. The final NRC cannot be considered to be a document and is not evidence per se. The learned Tribunal has correctly passed the order impugned by the petitioner and thus the aforementioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petition is devoid of merits. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 10. It appears that the petitioner is detained at the Matia Transit Camp, Goalpara. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his father's name is Sabu Ali and mother's name is Hafiza Begum. His grandfather was late Siraj Uddin Ali. 11. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law as the Tribunal did not consider any alternative arrangement. The petitioner was not accorded an opportunity to produce his documents and contest the proceeding when the ex-parte order was passed. The ex-parte order, has prejudiced the petitioner. He has categorically mentioned in his written statement that his paternal grandmother, Halima Begum, took shelter under the Mouzadar of Tengahat Mouza in the year 1945 along with her first husband, Jalal-Uddin, who died in the year 1950. Subsequently, Halima Begum got married to Siraj Uddin in the year 1959 and she was blessed with her sons Munu Ali and Sabu Ali. Subsequently, Halima Begum got married to Siraj Uddin in the year 1959 and she was blessed with her sons Munu Ali and Sabu Ali. Shiraj-Uddin died in the year 1975 and after the death of Shiraj Uddin Halima Begum continued to reside under the Mouzadar and in this respect, the Mouzadar submitted an information to the officer-in-charge of Tengakhat PS on 08.05.1992. It is further submitted that at a young age, Sabu Ali came to Dibrugarh in connection with work and started to reside at Santipara and his marriage was solemnized with Smt Hafiza Begum, daughter of Badiur Jamal, a resident of Rajapukhuri, Sunari, Gaon Panchayat, on 05.03.1996. Inadvertently, the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat depicts the year of marriage as 1983 instead of 1976. It is further submitted that the name of Badiur Jamal appears in the voters list of 1970 and Badiur Jamal is the father of the petitioners' mother and this establishes the linkage of the petitioners' mother with her father, Badiur Jamal which proves that the petitioner's mother is also an Indian citizen. 12. Learned Standing Counsel for FT matters has raised objection stating that the voters list of 1970 reflecting the petitioner’s maternal grandfather's name cannot be interlinked with the voters list of 2008 to prove the petitioner's citizenship. Although the submissions of the respondent is taken into consideration, it appears that an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioner to submit any other document to establish his citizenship. 13. This court has taken into consideration the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to appear immediately before the Tribunal and contest the proceedings as lockdown was imposed during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The period of limitation in filing the petitions/ applications/suits/appeal of quasi proceeding was extended for 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022 by the Supreme Court in connection with Re-Cognizance for extension of Limitation (Order dated 23.03.2020, suo moto WP (C) No.3/2020 . The impugned order in FT Case No.113/2018 was passed on 06.09.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner being a poor indigent layman was not aware of his predicament. This resulted in the delay in filing this petition, along with his siblings who have filed WP(C)No.4200/2025, WP(C)No.4229/2025 and WP(C)No.4232/2025. The impugned order in FT Case No.113/2018 was passed on 06.09.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner being a poor indigent layman was not aware of his predicament. This resulted in the delay in filing this petition, along with his siblings who have filed WP(C)No.4200/2025, WP(C)No.4229/2025 and WP(C)No.4232/2025. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is held that although the petitioner’s father was declared a foreigner vide order dated 03.03.2010 in FT Case No.362/2006, {upheld by this Court in WP(C) No.3602/2010}, an opportunity may be accorded to the petitioner to contest the proceeding of FT Case No.113/2018. 14. The petitioner may submit any other documents to establish his linkage. This court, while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, cannot deal with the documents which the petitioner has submitted along with the writ petition and which he has failed to submit before the Tribunal. While submitting his written statement, the petitioner has annexed photocopies of certain documents along with his written statement. The petitioner has also submitted that he has never visited any foreign land like Pakistan or Bangladesh. His family members earned their livelihood as masons in India. In view of the foregoing discussions, the opinion dated 06.09.2024 passed in FT case No.113/2018 (P.E. No.143/2018), is set aside, allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the aforementioned case. 15. As the petitioner is detained in the detention camp, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner namely, Rafikul Ali be released on bail, subject to compliance of the following conditions: a. The family members of the petitioner shall shall appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh and shall furnish bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with 1(one) solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the said authority. b. Before release of the petitioner on bail, the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh shall obtain the biometrics of the iris of both eyes, the fingerprints of both hands and the photographs of the petitioner. c. The said authority shall also obtain necessary information and documentation as required under the Rules from the petitioner for securing his presence. d. Thereafter, steps shall be taken by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh, to have the petitioner released from the Transit Camp within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. c. The said authority shall also obtain necessary information and documentation as required under the Rules from the petitioner for securing his presence. d. Thereafter, steps shall be taken by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dibrugarh, to have the petitioner released from the Transit Camp within 3(three) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal within 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and contest the proceedings and on his failure to appear before the learned Tribunal within the time allowed, it would be open to the said learned Tribunal to treat the petitioner as absent on call and proceed in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition stands disposed of.